Amazon.com Widgets

Are trials by jury a good thing (yes) or a bad thing (no)?

  • Juries always have had the most diverse viewpoints.

    Because there is no way to always know the true guilty person simply by one person listening to an argument, juries were created to make the most informed decision. Juries are a group of 12 people who have listened to both sides of the given argument and heard what people saw to find evidence. A jury brings multiple different points of view to a case and they debate until they have a logical decision with no misguided rulings of biases because of the views of multiple different people. Without a jury, the entire judicial system falls apart and loses meaning.

  • Because it is

    The hardest part of because I have can save your my dog 🐶 because I don't have a car and he came it gives you my business life to save your tiny heart and I have no problems because you have no problems and you will not get it right now or and save me your money tiny amount little time for me you

  • Ñañaña ha ha

    Ha ha ha ha aha ahanajajsms sjs, sjs sneak s smoke sjs s a good day one and only I had a the best thing way too long for the rest of the year before that I have a nice dream about you and I don't think it's funny because it was a little too late for work and I'm just going on to through my phone to the be the same best friend in the first place in the morning to and I don't think that I have a great way of the day before I get a follow back from the start of the best thing ever when you are a few weeks ago and it is not a an amazing and I the so much for the next few day of my school and work for the next day you're there

  • Ñañaña ha ha

    Ha ha ha ha aha ahanajajsms sjs, sjs sneak s smoke sjs s a good day one and only I had a the best thing way too long for the rest of the year before that I have a nice dream about you and I don't think it's funny because it was a little too late for work and I'm just going on to through my phone to the be the same best friend in the first place in the morning to and I don't think that I have a great way of the day before I get a follow back from the start of the best thing ever when you are a few weeks ago and it is not a an amazing and I the so much for the next few day of my school and work for the next day you're there

  • Bc democracy yas

    He he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he

  • Bc democracy yas

    He he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he

  • Juries have to happen

    Juries are like really cool, cause like one of my brothers were on a jury and like his girlfriend was on a jury and like they really help people who have done bad stuff. And like that will help the criminals and stuff, so yeah that's why they should be every where...

  • Juries are unqualified to determine legal issues. They defense hopes to sway them with emotions or perhaps play to an incompetent Prosecution.

    Why would a prosecution proceed without solid evidence to nail and risk a loss on his record unless they did not have all the facts. (Atty Rule #1 in court: Never ask a question you don't know the answer to) Why would a competent Defense not point out the errors during Discovery; or plea bargain if the evidence was overwhelming? The only reason for Jury Trial is the Defense is guilty.. And they hope the Prosecution screws up. Or that they are guilty and are stalling for time or most likely, the Defense is simply milking the client for more billable time. Either way.. The defense is guilty or incompetent and thus the need for the jury is moot.

  • What else would we have?

    Juries are a good thing because you get male and female views, as well as views from different races. So I would ask the question: What else would we do? As my opposition has stated; People have bias. So if you were to just have the judge decide the outcome of the case all by himself, just by what the judge thinks with no opposition or anyone with equal power. How is that more fair than a jury. With a jury you can have different views and you deliberate until you have a decision everyone can agree on. So is there anything better?

  • What Else Should We Do?

    With a jury you have variety. You have male and female viewpoints, as well as different races' opinions. If you were to take away trials by jury, I ask the question again. What else should we do? Just have the judge decide all of the cases. This would be a horrible mistake, because as the people opposing juries have stated: people have bias. At least with a jury you have different view points, but with just one person deciding the fate of the person on trial with no one to oppose their final decision. What else is there to do other than a jury that would be fair and not just one viewpoint?

  • End jury duty

    Not everyone is naturally inclined to be a juror, just like not everyone is naturally inclined to be a police officer or a history professor. When people are forced to perform a task outside their natural inclination they become unhappy, and when they become unhappy they perform poorly, so when jury duty forces naturally un-inclined people to serve as jurors, it not only violates their right to pursuit of happiness, but also damages the jury verdict itself. Indeed, most naturally un-inclined jurors, feeling, as they do, and rightfully so, only the loss of their own personal happiness, are willing just to go along with the verdict of the other jurors, right or wrong, in order to recover their own personal happiness as quickly as possible.
    “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime . . . Shall exist within the United States, nor any place subject to their jurisdictions.”
    “To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” —Jury duty imposes service on the governed without their consent, and therefore violates this passage.
    Www.Endjuryduty.Org

  • I would say NO.

    Because they basically get decision from their hearts not from their brains so they miss facts that matters, as there is no education level required in this duty. So this is no different from asking opinions from 12 random individuals who most likely have no idea about the subject. Misconduct of justice

  • I would say NO.

    Because they basically get decision from their hearts not from their brains so they miss facts that matters, as there is no education level required in this duty. So this is no different from asking opinions from 12 random individuals who most likely have no idea about the subject. Misconduct of justice

  • Juries suck and get everything wrong

    The jury system is a complete L and should be forced to be handled by donald trump the god of all law. Once it is handed to donald, he can decide if the person is guilty and will receive the death penalty or innocent and receive a small loan of $1,000,000

  • Only emotion no common sense

    The prosecutor and defense's only goal in the case would be to win the heart's of the juries. Whoever wins more heart's basically wins the case. These 12 random people chosen for this have absolutely no knowledge of law or justice, all they do is follow emotion without thinking like mindless drones. What is the point of a justice system that follows emotion. THE WORLD IN NOT BUILT UP OF EMOTION. If the point of the case is to win the heart's of the audience' then no one should take such a case seriously. Juries only follow emotion, so it's obvious that a trial by jury is a terrible idea to even begin with.

  • People can be bias!

    This can make a person feel as tho they must decide quickly, when they are chosen, and also ethically. Random people are told to go up to be a jury and decide someones life. Also... The jury is suppose to be familiar with the life styles of the people on trial. Because of my doubt of the people being chosen i am not for a jury, but i don't know any alternate system?

  • Legal Expertise ?

    Well would you like to be judged guilty because the criminal works in mafia and has threatened all the juries members ? Or better would you like to be charged guilty because the juries were tired after a long day of work ? Well honestly juries is not the best solution after all. Why don't we put a panel of judges that have lega expertise , have studied law in university and abolish those poor juries that suck after all ?

  • No trial by jury

    People should not be tried by jury because there is no way that you can tell if the person is really guilty or not. And people judge other people as soon as they see them. And tattoos or piercings or anything like that could be enough for a person to change their mind and make the wrong decision.

  • No trial by jury

    People should not be tried by jury because there is no way that you can tell if the person is really guilty or not. And people judge other people as soon as they see them. And tattoos or piercings or anything like that could be enough for a person to change their mind and make the wrong decision.

  • No trial by jury

    People should not be tried by jury because there is no way that you can tell if the person is really guilty or not. And people judge other people as soon as they see them. And tattoos or piercings or anything like that could be enough for a person to change their mind and make the wrong decision.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.